Big-Moving Minis Must Go ...

[JMS Miniatures]

For those that want to see what a Park Harness horse looks like just go to facebook and check out Jason Prince's photos of "Beaver" aka RFP Timed to Perfection. He doesn't have up the 2010 National Photos yet but there is one of '08 Nationals where Beav took second. This year this stallion won the Modern Harness Stakes at Congress and the Park Harness Stakes at Nationals. "Beav" belongs to Amy and Melissa Roberts so I can't post the picture here. I saw him drive a Nationals and the boy breaks at or above level. One NICE horse!

Now that is a park horse. Now can anyone prove to me that a average miniature can move like that, no.

 

[disneyhorse]

Now that is a park horse. Now can anyone prove to me that a average miniature can move like that, no.

I don't believe that National Grand Champion (or National Champions or in lots of cases, National Top Ten)horses SHOULD be the "average miniature horse." They should be the TOP of the nation at the time, for "average" breeders to strive for. Very few will achieve that goal, that's why the titles are so prestigious.

I am also willing to bet the "average" miniature horse could NOT compete with the National Grand Champion halter horse, either! Those horses are just plain gorgeous!

Andrea

 

[midnight star stables]

I don't believe that National Grand Champion (or National Champions or in lots of cases, National Top Ten)horses SHOULD be the "average miniature horse." They should be the TOP of the nation at the time, for "average" breeders to strive for. Very few will achieve that goal, that's why the titles are so prestigious.

I am also willing to bet the "average" miniature horse could NOT compete with the National Grand Champion halter horse, either! Those horses are just plain gorgeous!

Andrea

I too know of some STUNNING horses, be they halter horses or driving horses, and the are simply not the normal, average horse. They are breathtaking and most are National champions and HOF, often proving that is what puts them so much above the rest.

Although I am still for being stricter with the rules and changing the "Park" class - To make it more of a level playing field for the "average" horse and "the little guy" owner/trainer".

 

[ruffian]

Having to "qualify" in the class you are showing in is already enforced in AMHA. I would love to see this happen in AMHR. So if you want to show in Pleasure at Nationals, you have to qualify for it at local shows, etc. I think this is an excellent Idea that AMHR should adapt.

" don't believe that National Grand Champion (or National Champions or in lots of cases, National Top Ten)horses SHOULD be the "average miniature horse." They should be the TOP of the nation at the time, for "average" breeders to strive for. Very few will achieve that goal, that's why the titles are so prestigious.

I am also willing to bet the "average" miniature horse could NOT compete with the National Grand Champion halter horse, either! Those horses are just plain gorgeous!'

Yes, but ponies that don't meet the standard (yes there IS a standard for a miniature horse) for a miniature horse should not be the ones that are being placed as the ideal to strive for. A shetland, even if it IS 38" or under, is not the standard of a miniature horse and IMO should not be placed as a AMHR National Champion. That's what Congress is for.

I love the looks of shetlands. But why not change ASPC and split sizes instead of pushing them into AMHR? Jason's ponies are beautiful, and incredible movers, but they are Shetlands.

 

[kaykay]

Having to "qualify" in the class you are showing in is already enforced in AMHA. I would love to see this happen in AMHR. So if you want to show in Pleasure at Nationals, you have to qualify for it at local shows, etc. I think this is an excellent Idea that AMHR should adapt.

AMHA and AMHR are different. I dont want them to be the same. You do have to qualify for AMHR Nationals albeit not as strictly as AMHA. But the flip side of that is AMHR Nationals is huge especially compared to AMHA. This is why AMHA has the reputation of being for the rich and "elite" Where AMHR has always been for anyone that cares enough to take the time to get their horse ready and show it.

Even without the stricter qualifying the horses are stunning and the cream of the crop.

Yes, but ponies that don't meet the standard (yes there IS a standard for a miniature horse) for a miniature horse should not be the ones that are being placed as the ideal to strive for. A shetland, even if it IS 38" or under, is not the standard of a miniature horse and IMO should not be placed as a AMHR National Champion. That's what Congress is for.

I just dont understand how you can make a statement like that? I just went and reread the standard for the millionth time and I do believe my ASPC/AMHR horses meet the standard. Both of these girls have been shown against some really tough competition and held their own so the judges thought they met the standard?

What are you seeing that makes them violate the standard?

 

[JMS Miniatures]

Ok perhaps I should have wrote my words better. What I meant by average I'm talking about your AMHR mini, not your AMHR/ASPC mini shetland.

I totally agree with Ruffian's post.

 

[Minimor]

Kay, I'd like to know that too. What is there in the AMHR standard that eliminates the ASPC/AMHR horses for some people? Nothing that I can see. Someone should point out exactly which of the standards it is that the ASPC/AMHR horses don't meet?

People complain about the big moving horses, and yet supposedly people do like well conformed horses? I've been questioning this since this particular thread has been going. If the goal is to have a long, well laid back shoulder (or as it is worded in the standard of perfection: long, sloping and well-angulated) and a long hip....both of which are considered good things to have on a well conformed horse...you are going to start having bigger moving horses just because of those particular conformation traits. If people don't want big moving then I guess they're okay with having straighter shoulders and shorter, weaker hips as well, just to make sure that they don't end up with a big moving horse?

Now that is a park horse. Now can anyone prove to me that a average miniature can move like that, no.

No, the average miniature can't move like that, and that's why I say that the average miniature doesn't belong in the park class. A good many of the big moving Pleasure horses being complained about in this thread cannot move like that, nor do they have the presence and animation that this horse has...and IMO if they don't have that kind of movement, presence and animation they are Pleasure horses, not Park horses. Likewise I suggest that a great many of the horses showing in Pleasure are actually Country Pleasure and should be showing as such.

 

[Shelley]

The AMHR Rulebook states on page 252, regarding the Country Pleasure Driving division:

"Excessive knee action and speed shall be penalized."

Perhaps if the Pleasure horses that are being dropped down into Country Pleasure at Nationals

were penalized, then the proper horses could again be rewarded in their correct divisions.

Our true Country Pleasure horses cannot be dropped to Western because they do not have Western

Country Pleasure headsets. Yet they cannot compete with a Pleasure horse's action.

Bob is correct...with the Pleasure horses being rewarded in Country, that leave no place

for the true Country horses to compete.

Shelley

 

[Minimor]

What precisely is “excessive” knee action??

The term means different things to different people—so what one person complains is excessive another may see as being just right. Some think that any lift to the knees is excessive, others figure that as long as the forearm is just a little below level it is okay.

 

[ruffian]

The AMHR Rulebook states on page 252, regarding the Country Pleasure Driving division:

"Excessive knee action and speed shall be penalized."

Perhaps if the Pleasure horses that are being dropped down into Country Pleasure at Nationals

were penalized, then the proper horses could again be rewarded in their correct divisions.

Our true Country Pleasure horses cannot be dropped to Western because they do not have Western

Country Pleasure headsets. Yet they cannot compete with a Pleasure horse's action.

Bob is correct...with the Pleasure horses being rewarded in Country, that leave no place

for the true Country horses to compete.

Shelley

YES!!

 

[alphahorses]

Andrea (Disneyhorse) also makes an excellent point in that the breed is simply evolving and changing and most people that drive these days do want a horse with more action and movement. That sort of horse also is going to usually stand out in the show ring and catch the eye of the judges. I know how much fun it is to drive a horse like Zeb myself and how much I enjoy watching others drive him and I'd like more horses like him with his movement, talent, heart and personality.

I agree. Our goal should not just be for our horses to LOOK like miniature versions of their full-size cousins, but to MOVE like them as well. Anyone who has watched a dressage or hunter class can tell you that most minis are painfully short strided. Some of my friends with full size horses watched some of Nationals and asked my why people show minis who "pitter pat" when they move. Made me cringe, but in many cases, they were right.

The horses that didn't move short, really stood out. And there were very few that came anywhere close to moving like a full size horse - and they were consistantly pinned.

Long strided (not high) free moving motion should be our goal in the Pleasure division. As someone already said, there are already country and western pleasure divisions for shorter strided horses. And yes, the horse that break level should be in park. But I saw almost none of them, and I watched most of the driving classes.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

Your right those pleasure horses really do move out, thats why I think they are doing so well in roadster as well. Thats why they cannot go into Park. It was explained to me for in Park class its all up and down motion, they don't necessarilly go anywhere. I guess maybe thats why they don't have extended trot. Those pleasure horses do go somewhere. I still personally don't see adding a division is going to help. I honestly think those country horses cannot go much higher knee action then they are now. Fix the rules, show us what you want for country. Cause honestly country can be pretty much anything right now.

I am going to try my hardest to go to Convention this year. Too many improtant proposals are going to be voted on without getting the voice from its members. If I'm able to go I will not vote for this.

 

[Mominis]

I know park harness allows both viceroy carts and 2-wheel carts; however, it is very uncommon to see a 2-wheeled cart used. Now IMO, it does take away from the whole picture, but to be honest, if I had a horse with movement that could go pleasure or park, I would still enter the park class, as having a park harness horse is a personal goal. Park classes also ONLY offer open and stake classes. I think offering the extra classes, such as ladies, youth, amateur and gentlemen driving, are also important.

I think that the rules about Park should be changed. I think that the class should push the use of 2-wheel carts over that of viceroy. Why? Because that is the only real difference in the class. I know I wouldn't be able to bring both a viceroy and my grabber to every show, as I just don't have the room. I know I am not the only one. I know that I always show my driving horses in either a ladies class or a amateur class as well as open and stakes. Park harness classes don't allow for this.

I think if you changed the name and the vehicle, and gave the class as much "glory" as the current Single Pleasure driving class, you may have more entries. Name it something like "Modern Pleasure Driving, or Extreme Pleasure Driving" so that it still sounds like one of the "normal" driving classes we offer, and do away with the "Park" class. I think this class should be more open then the current park class. Maybe incentives should be offered to enter this class. Maybe money, or year end awards, or an article in the Journal covering the class and maybe a write-up in the Journal of the top 10 all star horses(and their farm) in that class of that year. I think that if we support the improved "Park" class, there might be happier members all round? You'll give the "big-movers" their own class, and a reason to be there. Hype up the glory for the class, and make it something impressive - not a "joke".

I am NOT for adding another class, but I would support CHANGING our current class.

I think that there are some flaws with the current "Park" class, and changes may help. I am hoping that in the next 5 to 10 years, I will showing in Park harness; no matter what it is like then. I will do my part to support the class.

I agree entirely with the change of vehicle. I know that, should either of my boys end up moving big enough with enough attitude to go into park that the viceroy would be a stumbling block for us. I just don't have that kind of money, to be honest.

Is it just me or isn't any ASPC or AMHA horse under 38" eligible for registration with AMHR and therefore a "miniature horse" by default? Despite closing the books we are not yet a BREED. Bloodlines do not matter. Only size and eligibility matter, and therefore, like it or not, an undersized Modern Shetland is every bit as much a miniature horse as one from 30 years of AMHA breeding. That's just the way it is! I am one who prefers a different type of mover in my own barn and want to see there remain a place for that sort of horse, but see below for a further discussion of doing that.

Leia

This is kind of a confusing point to me too. I'm glad you brought it up.

I just dont understand how you can make a statement like that? I just went and reread the standard for the millionth time and I do believe my ASPC/AMHR horses meet the standard. Both of these girls have been shown against some really tough competition and held their own so the judges thought they met the standard?

What are you seeing that makes them violate the standard?

Good post, Kay. And nice horses too!!

What precisely is “excessive” knee action??

The term means different things to different people—so what one person complains is excessive another may see as being just right. Some think that any lift to the knees is excessive, others figure that as long as the forearm is just a little below level it is okay.

I would like to know how this is defined too. I read some complaints about a particular country class that was discussed on the forums and I honestly didn't see a horse in there that I wouldn't have thought should have gone in the class. I agree that clarification is needed.

This thread is very educational to me with an up and coming driving horse for next year. It seems to be a productive discussion with no bashing. That is also very refreshing. Thanks to you guys who have been in the AMHR horses for a long time for sharing your knowledge with newbies like me. It is really helpful.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

Honestly what is the standard of a miniature horse? None. As long as you have a good horse thats under 38" then your a miniature. There really is no standard and perhaps it is time for AMHR to make it more clearer. I know people have said there is but there isn't. Read the rulebook, tell me what kind of horse is it describing?

This whole post is screaming evolution, evolution, breeding for better. We were screaming when shetlands were winning in halter, now we are doing it in driving. Honestly this is the route AMHR is taking. Those ponies are good, their is no question about it. If you have a mini that was winning 3 years ago but can't win this year, well they are just brining in something thats a lil better then yours. Thats all it is too it. Honestly Pleasure it can get better. But what needs to happen is to make it more detailed like they did for the western for country class, cause I agree its not going to get any better for country. Their are alot of country horses out there, they really are, and maybe they can do well locally but maybe not Nationally, well thats part of the game.

I am curious afterall none of us has asked how is this proposal written? How is it going to keep these big-moving minis out of pleasure?

 

[ruffian]

There most certainly IS a Standard of Perfection. There is also one for Modern Shetland Classic Shetland. If you read the SOP, you will see there are CLEAR differences, mostly between the Modern and Mini.

The SOP for the Miniature is very abbreviated compared especially to the Modern one, but there are differences. Most important to me is not even addressed in the Modern SOP - MINIATURE HORSE GENERAL IMPRESSION - THE DISPOSITION SHOULD BE EAGER AND FRIENDLY, NOT SKITTISH.

SOP - MODERN SHETLAND - "Ladies, Amatuer, and children's ponies in harness SHOULD stand quietly and back readily." I don't want a miniature of any sex or in an performance division that I would not put my grandson on or behind.

 

[Minimor]

I'm not sure what the Modern Shetland Standard of Perfection has to do with a pony being

'wrong' for the Miniature standard of perfection ? A Modern pony may very well fit into that definition of being eager and friendly, not skittish. Just because it is a Modern doesn't make it skittish or not friendly.

And I think that wording about harness ponies standing quietly and backing readily is taken from one of the class descriptions, not the actual Modern standard of perfection? The Mini class description appears to be worded "must stand quietly and rein back". So, Minis must rein back, but not necessarily "readily"???

I prefer to drive Minis (and remember that none of my Minis are Shetlands, they don't even have Shetlands on their papers) that are not suitable for anyone's grandchildren (young ones at least) to drive. That is strictly a choice thing, it's not in the Mini standard of perfection.

 

[midnight star stables]

There most certainly IS a Standard of Perfection. There is also one for Modern Shetland Classic Shetland. If you read the SOP, you will see there are CLEAR differences, mostly between the Modern and Mini.

The SOP for the Miniature is very abbreviated compared especially to the Modern one, but there are differences. Most important to me is not even addressed in the Modern SOP - MINIATURE HORSE GENERAL IMPRESSION - THE DISPOSITION SHOULD BE EAGER AND FRIENDLY, NOT SKITTISH.

SOP - MODERN SHETLAND - "Ladies, Amatuer, and children's ponies in harness SHOULD stand quietly and back readily." I don't want a miniature of any sex or in an performance division that I would not put my grandson on or behind.

I sure hope I never have any of those evil ponies in my barn. Oh wait, I want a Modern. I guess ALL moderns are deadly and I'll never ever find a safe one.

I'm sorry, but I find this post just plain mean to PONIES. I have seen several AMHA miniatures that I would never trust with a child. I have also seen many children with ASPC ponies, including Moderns. Is this every horse? No. It will never be either. But I have to say that I have seen all sides to this.

I know I have an older gelding who is not safe around children or crowds, as he is easily spooked by fast movements. He bolts when he feels threatened. We still love him and have owned him for years. We don't have issues with him, but warn visitors to be slow and quiet around him. Our bombproof horse on the farm is our stallion - hormones and all. Do we give him to children to play with? No, but I wouldn't bat an eyelash if children were with him.

Every HORSE is different. Just because it is a breed, it doesn't guarantee any temperament. Owners and trainers also add much to a horse's personality.

I truly hate the "us" vs "them" post. And I agree with Holly again. Ruffian, I'm not sure why you dislike ponies so, but it is clear from many of your posts.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

As I have always said in my posts that in general ponies are more hot blooded. However they make wonderful kids mounts and with the right training they can be lovely ponies.

I have also seen some nasty miniatures so I think it goes with any breed they are not all the same.

 

[muffntuf]

The Standard of Perfection, if you read each division of the rulebook, is almost cut and paste.

 

[ruffian]

"And I think that wording about harness ponies standing quietly and backing readily is taken from one of the class descriptions, not the actual Modern standard of perfection? The Mini class description appears to be worded "must stand quietly and rein back". So, Minis must rein back, but not necessarily "readily"???

You're right, my mistake, This was taken from the Part 4 - Manners, of the Modern Pony Section VII, page 115, which immediately follows the SOP.

However, the SOP for the Modern pony covers 3 1/2 pages, and describes in detail, as it should, each aspect of the Modern Shetland pony. The Classic Pony SOP is 4 1/2 pages. The Standard for the miniature horse for AMHR is 1 1/2 page.

I do like the Modern Shetland pony. I love to watch them perform. They are amazing and athletic. I just don't want them in my barn. Yes, I've owned a couple. I've been around a lot of them. I don't want them in my show arena with my miniature horses, who've I've spent the last 30 years getting them to the place they are now.

I apologize for offending anybody with my posts. I'll keep my trap clapped (as much as I can

) on this subject.